Religion
Related: About this forumIn religious dispute, Kentucky Amish men jailed for not using reflective triangles on buggies
By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, January 12, 4:16 PM
MAYFIELD, Ky. A group of Amish men were sent to jail in western Kentucky Thursday for refusing to pay fines for breaking a state highway law that requires their horse-drawn buggies to be marked with orange reflective triangles.
The men have a religious objection to the bright orange signs, which they say are flashy and conflict with their pledge to live low-key and religious lives.
Ananias Byler, the first of 10 Amish men who appeared in Graves County District Court on Thursday, was sentenced to 10 days in jail. The men were jailed for being found in contempt of court for refusing to pay fines. Byler told Judge Deborah Crooks Thursday that he would not pay the $489 he owes.
I totally understand your objection, the judge told Byler. But youre in violation, and its not up to me to change the law. It doesnt really matter what I think about any of this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/ky-amish-men-due-in-court-for-not-putting-reflective-tags-on-buggies-in-religious-dispute/2012/01/12/gIQAMVJItP_story.html
If you continue reading, however, you will find that they do not have to wear orange jumpsuits while in jail for not using orange reflectors.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)They refused to comply with traffic laws and were punished for it.
"The issue over the orange triangles has come up before in other states with Amish populations. Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania have allowed exemptions for the Swartzentrubers, and courts in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan have sided with them."
Do you find it odd they have been given an exemption to weaing orange jail jumpsuits?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Not sure why anyone would, or SHOULD, get any kind of exemption from public safety laws, especially traffic safety laws. Not using the reflectors affects everyone on the road, not just them.
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)From traffic safety laws at all, for any reason. It makes no sense.
rug
(82,333 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)I must confess that in this world I would feel much safer having Amish as neighbors than having you as neighbor - self sufficient communities with ethics of giving and sharing and pacifism would be very nice neighbors in this turbulent world of Peak Oil etc. But also must confess that safety is not always what I'm seeking, first and foremost...
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I live very close to Wisconsin Amish country and visit it often. They have Igloo coolers in their homes. They use phones of the neighbors to make calls. They don't completely abandon modern technology. And, hey, it's their dogma and they can do what they want. But, personally, I think it is kind of hypocritical of them to find a way to say it is OK to use a bright red igloo cooler on their farm and then bitch about an orange safety sign which is meant to protect them and others on the road. And don't get people started on the Amish on the roads around here. Their metal wheels cause the roads to need repair quite frequently and the Amish don't pay any taxes toward that. Lots of people are pissed about it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)They don't want to use the orange because it goes against their religion. A religion that they make exceptions for when it is something they need. We need them to make this exception for their safety and ours.
Unless you mean the road taxes, then yes. I just offered that as an aside.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)Highway taxes seem like a no-brainer if they're using the roads, especially if their use necessitates more need of those monies.
tama
(9,137 posts)they avoid paying "motor vehicle registration fees or motor fuel taxes, (taxes which are typically used to finance public roads)."
There is no Amish "dogma", but each community makes their own decisions between living in the worldly world and the values of being plain. They don't believe in the one size fits all kinds of solutions.
In my book the Amish are the true fundamentalists, in the positive sense of the word.
PS: Roads made of asphalt are made of oil, and obviously they are not "plain". Dirt roads are more sustainable.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)When we already have exemptions and special protections by the bucketload for them? Good that at least one jurisdiction wants to protect my safety over their superstition.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Whatever else you may think of the Amish, they are hardly godbotherers.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)are the most frightening. I have nothing to fear from plain and pacifist Amish, but plenty of reasons to be afraid of US of A.
Jim__
(14,045 posts)Or, based on what the sheriff said, the problem is with night driving. Are they citing these people in the daytime? Maybe if they only cited them at night it would help.
rug
(82,333 posts)edhopper
(33,164 posts)in a biblical fantasy land. (Which them seem to think was embodied in 1805). But when they wish to come out into our country based on laws that apply to everyone, then they must comply with those laws.
rug
(82,333 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)have the slow-moving vehicle sign on the back. Usually with a red flashing light for night driving. I saw Amish kids on a four-lane highway at 2am with red flashing lights on their back.
Critters2
(30,889 posts)two tail lights. I assumed it was a car until I was close enough to see the triangle, which was harder to see than usual in the fog. I hit my brakes and moved onto the shoulder, or I would've hit it for sure.
edhopper
(33,164 posts)And of course I was talking about their "Historic Williamsburg" type enclaves where they use the Bible like some misunderstood text in a Star Trek episode. When they choose to come out into the real world, where God has allowed Mankind to use electricity, they must comply with the laws of the land.
rug
(82,333 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)you and your government is not their boss, and their "fantasy land" is working much better than your fantasy land based on worship of Mammon and Violence. They don't really need your fantasy land as their fantasy land is self-sustainable and can survive fine and even better without your fantasy land.
Amish are stronger than your country and your laws, do you know why?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Oh, and I got to ask, how are they stronger?
tama
(9,137 posts)are less afraid.
edhopper
(33,164 posts)That if they don't follow their particular reading of the Bible and follow it to the letter they will bring forth God's wrath.
Not afraid of that?
tama
(9,137 posts)the government and society that builds armies and uses violence for the "benefit" of those who are possessed by their possessions.
Their pacifism is product of evolution, in the early history of the Mennonites or Anabaptists there was also a violent sect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_Rebellion). Violent sect is not more but the pacifists remain and prosper, their numbers in US growing from just couple hundred to current 250 000 (old order).
edhopper
(33,164 posts)What gives them the right to not abide by the laws of the public roads they drive on?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)but this is public safety we are talking about, on public roads, certain rules need to be followed, and any compromises need to not sacrifice that safety.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I am not interested enough to really research those laws, but I assume they both protect the general public and accommodate the customs of a segment of that population.
I agree that until those changes are made, the Amish are obligated to follow the laws in place.
tama
(9,137 posts)a bunch of corrupt politicians, right to tell others what to do? E.g. to tell me not to smoke pot and murder people around the world...
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)That's pretty fundamental civics right there.
tama
(9,137 posts)if you ask me.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)a self confessed anarchist.
And no, I don't have all the answers.
edhopper
(33,164 posts)with the reference to "rights" you were trying to discuss political and moral philosophy.
edhopper
(33,164 posts)from your replies I assumed that you don't live in the US since you don't have some basic knowledge of the laws.
tama
(9,137 posts)But as you brought up the issue of rights, by what right US took the land from the people who were living there already - and living in better balance with nature, I might add. Or by what right Sweden conquered the land where I live, called Finland?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)edhopper
(33,164 posts)of the native Americans have to do with traffic laws?
tama
(9,137 posts)what "gives them the right to not abide by the laws", I respond with the question, what right has a (genocidal) government to make laws?
Some posters have got very annoyed against Amish and blaming the victim and demanding even that law should not make any exemptions based on religion, I'm trying to put things in larger perspective and reminding what kind of system is making those laws in the first place.
edhopper
(33,164 posts)that is just simplistic and irrational. As Americans we live by the Constitution, we often acknowledge the bad this country has done, but at the same time we appreciate the laws that we live by.
If you want to discuss the right of any government to impose laws, I think that is for another forum.
tama
(9,137 posts)is the belief in the Constitution. There is an anecdote about Kurt Gödel, when he applied for citizenship of US, the great logician read the constitution and told his friend Einstein that he had found an logical error there, with the division of powers I presume. Einstein told Gödel to keep his mouth shut when dealing with the immigration officials, so we don't know exactly what was the mistake that Gödel found.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)its a very patriarchal society and many communities have a history of abuse of women and children.
They aren't idyllic, they have problems with diseases that we have far less to worry about, they can be very oppressive of their members, etc.
tama
(9,137 posts)of those problems. As I'm also aware of the problems that US government and oil addiction are causing.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)What does one have to do with the other?
tama
(9,137 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)on how to balance religious liberties with the need for public safety on public roads. You on the other hand seem to not even acknowledge that public roads exist, never mind the public itself. You've rather successfully derailed this thread from the topic at hand to unsuccessfully challenge the need for governments, public interest, or even society itself. You are an anarchist, I get it, its fanciful, unrealistic, and rather enlightening, so let me see if I can enlighten things for you as well, people exist outside your home, figure out how to live and work with them, ok?
tama
(9,137 posts)I would feel safer with people like Amish as my neighbors than "rational" people like you.
madmom
(9,681 posts)be a non story, they wouldn't be on our public roads. If they were truly self sustainable they would have their own roads and travel solely on them, as they are not and do not, why should there be an exception? If I hit one of their buggys from behind who is at fault?
tama
(9,137 posts)"Like other citizens, Amish pay sales and property taxes. However, Amish buggies, bicyclists, and pedestrians use public highways, but need not pay either motor vehicle registration fees or motor fuel taxes[43] (taxes which are typically used to finance public roads)."
madmom
(9,681 posts)they have to use public roads.
tama
(9,137 posts)Their way of live is not dependent from public roads, and most crucially, from oil. When systems dependent from oil addiction fail, Amish way of life does not.
madmom
(9,681 posts)spin you want to put on it about needing oil or whatever is beside the actual point that you said they are self sufficient and they are not! They use public roads they are obligated to go by public laws. I don't believe I should have to sit at a red light when there is no traffic but if I drove off I'd get a ticket. Why can't I park in a handicap parking spot if I want without threat of a ticket? or drive over 20 mph in a school zone? These are just a few examples of traffic laws that we all must obey whether we agree with them or not, we don't have a choice.
tama
(9,137 posts)moved around America long before there were cars and roads.
I have a choice not to drive or own a car and I don't, so I don't have to obey those traffic laws you mention. Cars that make countries fight over oil and commit horrible crimes against humanity and the planet. I do occasionally walk against red lights when there are no cars coming...
madmom
(9,681 posts)were built for cars and trucks. If you want to walk that is your prerogative but if you are on the road, even on a bicycle you must obey traffic rules, even when you walk there are certain "rules of the road" you must follow or you can get a ticket. If they don't like the rules of the road it is their prerogative to not use the roads. You keep moving the goal posts further and further so I think I'm done, you are just being purposely obtuse. Have a good night
"must" not eat peyote or smoke pot, in fear of your evil government that is in constant war with what not. I don't follow any rules, when I do, because I "must", but only if they make sense.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Failure to comply with traffic or other regulations results in fines and/or imprisonment.
Failure to properly understand the physics of light and vision for drivers at night is the issue here.
This kind of equation that claims any non-rational approach to the modern world can be called a "religious" belief is the main issue here. This kind of thinking would mean people would be free to bully others, to keep slaves, to beat children, or worse, due to their "religious" rights to do so.
The time in jail is what faces anyone who continually flaunts the law of the land, no matter what their religious beliefs may be.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)of being a low key religious Hood ornament grab ya?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)while respecting the beliefs or customs of a community, I am stymied as to why they would not change the rules.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)reducing the level of safety of ALL people in the community is not part of what the Constitution authorizes.
Quite simply, when we start bending and changing the best rules to favor one people's set of religious beliefs over another, we are in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
Some people have religious beliefs that sharing of blood from one human being to another is against their faith. Should we change the rules regarding blood transfusions simply because one religion believes that?
Obviously the secular goals of the state may be in conflict with numerous religious beliefs. Changing the best state-of-the-art rules enacted legitimately for the safety and protection of ALL citizens rules in such a way as as to favor or excuse the beliefs of some smacks in the face of the intent and purpose of the very secular Constitution of the USA.
It's really that simple.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Hospitals make accommodations for religious beliefs all the time. Often a sticky ethical/medical dilemma, but, in general, people's religious beliefs are respected and the rules changed.
My question was this - if there is a reasonable accommodation that can be made that maintains the same level of safety, why not make it? Other states have. It doesn't favor anyone's beliefs, it simply accommodates them.
Some who participate here say that believers have a mental disorder. So maybe the ADA applies.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)all patients have the right to refuse medical treatment, one of the hallmarks of medical ethics. However, other people do not, unless under specific circumstances, have the right to do so in the case of others who can't consent. Jehovah's Witnesses can't tell doctors to not give their children life saving blood because its against their religion, the doctors are ethically obligate to violate the parent's wishes in this case.
Obviously, in the case of emergency situations where the patient can't communicate, doctors do all they can to save/stabilize them and deal with any consequences later.
And this is the issue, this refusal to comply with a traffic law endangers others, not just themselves, that's why, if a reasonable accommodation can't be met, then they should be forced to comply with the law, or if they can't, not use public roads.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I don't see the link between this and any Constitutional issues.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Congress, and the authority of states which descend from the Constitution, "shall make no laws"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
"..... law respecting an establishment of religion"
The authority of the state, granted by the Constitution and subsequent Congresses, must comply with lawmaking and thus can make "NO LAW. respecting an establishment of religion"
We don't make law in America to give a bonus benefit to one religious belief over another.
If those who feel that they CANNOT comply with the laws of PA, and CAN comply with the laws of other states, due solely to religious reasons, then they have the freedom in the USA to move to where they can comply with the law, due to religious reasons. It is not the obligation of the state (Congress shall make no law) to comply with the religious beliefs of some.
Simple, really, if one understands the Constitution.
If you want to speak about safety, start from getting rid of cars and oil addiction. It's so fucking easy to lose your sense of proportion when you are blinded by religion, or hatred towards, or blind authoritarianism of government worship.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Granting exemptions to following the law based upon religious beliefs is just plain unconstitutional.
Try again.
tama
(9,137 posts)in a peyote ceremony of the Native American Church. I hold in contempt belief systems and authoritarianism that would persecute participants including me myself, in the name of "equal treatment under the law".
rug
(82,333 posts)It was part of a funeral service for a Sioux who was killed by the government during the occupation of Wounded Knee. Peyote soup was used.
in a local Finnish Ecovillage with a Wheel Man from Arizona.
The tears started coming, I had recently divorced after 20 years of marriage, and cried for days after the ceremony. A friend of mine did this song about his experience in the same ceremony:
rug
(82,333 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)I added a link to a song in the previous post. Hope you enjoy it.
rug
(82,333 posts)When he gave us the medicine, we took it in
It was sweetly familiar, like a memory of a life I lived.
It found there within me, all my fear and doubt.
I moved to the outside and turned inside out.
I never heard of this guy. Thanks for the heads up.
married a Finnish woman.
Last line you quoted refers to letting go of the fear and doubt in the material form of vomit... transubstantiation of sorts.
rug
(82,333 posts)Good stuff.
tama
(9,137 posts)he was.
Metaphysical bodily excrements are considered very important in the healing processes with certain medicines (cannabis, peyote, ayahuasca, etc., and also special vomitivos like kambo etc.).
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Gosh you're such a tough rugged individualist.
tama
(9,137 posts)and like to live in communities, a social being. I just don't replace my conscience (together-knowing) with states and their laws. And I know many other atheists who are anarchists and have used substances banned by government. They are being beaten and jailed and persecuted by the secular state and its laws and cops, not by theists.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)....that respects the customs and beliefs of the atheist community, significantly larger as it is than the Amish?
Why doesn't it stymie you that one has never been sought?
tama
(9,137 posts)to begin with.
But why don't you start one? A self sustainable community of atheist farmers that does not need a government to feed them...
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)a coordinated effort to go after religious believers?
tama
(9,137 posts)of copyright restrictions.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)many kinds of communities, and the word can have several meanings.
rug
(82,333 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Or maybe you missed dmallind's point.
rug
(82,333 posts)"29. Is there a reasonable alternative to religious privilege that respects the customs and beliefs of the atheist community"
As to his point, inapposite as it is, I got it.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Just practicing your spoon work again?
rug
(82,333 posts)You call that spoon work?
No wonder you worry about bullies. Every question is sinister.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)full of sound and fury
signifying nothing.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)To be clear, I meant about your opinion of my posts.
rug
(82,333 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)I've visited many communities that aim for sustainable ways of life, and I have lived in couple. These "hippie villages" have a lots of "spiritual peoples" and practices, but no shared religion as such. There are also similar religious communities, and in this part of the world the most succesfull ecovillage is a theosophist community, whose members refuse social aid, that helps a lot a near by hippie community, whose members pick up unemployment benefits etc. government aid.
In that sense, a shared religion seems on empirical grounds a strength for a community.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Thanks for the kick.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Frankly, I don't think that exemption would fall in line with the other type of safety laws that we have in effect, but I still think it would be OK...if it were just for their safety.
It's not.
I grew up near a rather large Amish settlement. They drove their buggies on the same roads the rest of use, just like this situation. I know what happens when a car rear ends a horse-drawn buggy, and after that accident the Amish started putting detachable reflective orange triangles on the back of their buggies before getting on the road.
It's not right to subject your six-year-old daughter to a horrible death by the crushing of her ribcage just because your religion objects to a color. It's not right to subject another couple to death-by-horse-through-windshield just because your religion objects to a color. The Amish people around my old stomping grounds had to learn that the hard way, and I hope no one else does.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)How dare you think their "deeply held beliefs" are less important than innocent lives you horrid bigot!